4 research outputs found
The influence of magnethotherapy on blood pressure in patients with and without arterial hypertension treated for lumbar back pain syndrome
Wstęp. Wśród metod fizjoterapii stosowanych w zespołach
bólowych kręgosłupa znajduje się magnetoterapia. Wielu
spośród pacjentów z zespołem bólowym kręgosłupa cierpi
na nadciśnienie tętnicze (NT). Wpływ pola magnetycznego
(PM) na ciśnienie tętnicze krwi (RR) jest nie do końca poznany i
często budzi obawy przed stosowaniem tego rodzaju terapii u
pacjentów z nadciśnieniem tętniczym. Celem pracy jest ocena
wpływu zabiegów magnetoterapii stosowanej w zespołach
bólowych kręgosłupa lędźwiowo-krzyżowego na wartości
ciśnienia tętniczego i tętna u pacjentów z rozpoznanym i leczonym
nadciśnieniem tętniczym (NT) oraz u chorych bez NT.
Materiał i metody. Do badania zakwalifikowano 60 chorych
z zespołem bólowym kręgosłupa lędźwiowo-krzyżowego,
których podzielono na 2 grupy w zależności od współistnienia
NT. U wszystkich pacjentów wykonywano zabiegipolem magnetycznym o następujących parametrach:
indukcja magnetyczna 9 mT, częstotliwość zmian natężenia
pola magnetycznego 40 Hz, czas impulsu 0,5 s, kształt pola
prostokątny. U każdego pacjenta wykonywano czterokrotnie
pomiar RR oraz tętna: przed, w połowie czasu, po, oraz 10 min.
po wykonanym zabiegu.
Wyniki. W grupie 1 obserwowano wyższe wartości RR przed,
w trakcie i po zabiegu. Stwierdzono istotne zmniejszenie
RR i zwolnienie tętna w trakcie zabiegów magnetoterapii
w obu grupach. Nie zaobserwowano trwałych zmian RR po
10 zabiegach magnetoterapii.
Wnioski. 1. W trakcie zabiegów magnetoterapii dochodzi
do istotnego spadku RR skurczowego i tętna u chorych z NT
i bez NT.
2. Ciśnienie rozkurczowe w trakcie zabiegów magnetoterapii
ulega obniżeniu u chorych z NT i bez NT.
3. Obniżenie skurczowego ciśnienia tętniczego i tętna podczas
zabiegu magnetoterapii utrzymuje się po 10 minutach
od zakończenia zabiegu w grupie chorych z NT.
4. Magnetoterapia powoduje istotne podwyższenie ciśnienia
rozkurczowego krwi po 10 minutach od zakończenia zabiegu
w grupie z NT i bez NT. Długość trwania takiego efektu wymaga
jednak potwierdzenia w kolejnych badaniach.Background: Magnetotherapy is one of the methods applied
in the treatment of back pain syndromes. Many patients with
back pain syndromes suffer from arterial hypertension (AH).
The influence of magnetic fields (MF) on blood pressure is
not clearly recognized and its application in patients with
arterial hypertension causes some concern.
The aim of the study was to assess the influence of
magnetotherapy applied in patients with lumbar and sacral
back pain syndromes on blood pressure and pulse rate in
patients diagnosed with arterial hypertension and treated
for it and those without hypertension.
Materials and methods: 60 patients (pts) with lumbar and
sacral back pain syndromes were included in the study.
The patients were divided into 2 groups depending on the
coexistence of hypertension. Magnetic fields procedures(magnetic induction 9 mT, frequency 40 Hz, impulse time –
0,5 s, impulse shape - rectangular) were performed in every
patient. Blood pressure and pulse rate were measured 4 times
in every patient: before, half time, after and 10 minutes after
the procedure was completed.
Results: Higher blood pressure measurements before,
during and after the procedure were observed in group 1.
Significant blood pressure and pulse rate decrease during
magnetotherapy procedures was observed in both groups.
Reduction of blood pressure was not observed after 10
procedures.
Conclusions: 1. In the course of magnetotherapy procedure
a significant decrease in systolic BP and pulse is observed in
patients with hypertension and without AH.
2. Diastolic blood pressure is reduced during magnetotherapy
in patients with hypertension and without AH.
3. The reduction in systolic BP and pulse lasts up to 10 minutes
after the end of magnetotherapy procedure in patients with
hypertension.
4. Magnetic field causes a significant increase in diastolic BP
10 minutes after the end of the procedure in the group with
AH and without AH. The duration of this effect, however,
requires confirmation in further studies
Clinical replicability of rehabilitation interventions in randomized controlled trials reported in main journals is inadequate
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to study if randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in rehabilitation (a field where complex interventions prevail) published in main journals include all the details needed to replicate the intervention in clinical practice (clinical replicability). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Forty-seven rehabilitation clinicians of 5 professions from 7 teams (Belgium, Italy, Malaysia, Pakistan, Poland, Puerto Rico, the USA) reviewed 76 RCTs published by main rehabilitation journals exploring 14 domains chosen through consensus and piloting. RESULTS: The response rate was 99%. Inter-rater agreement was moderate/good. All clinicians considered unanimously 12 (16%) RCTs clinically replicable and none not replicable. At least one "absent" information was found by all participants in 60 RCTs (79%), and by a minimum of 85% in the remaining 16 (21%). Information considered to be less well described (8-19% "perfect" information) included two providers (skills, experience) and two delivery (cautions, relationships) items. The best described (50-79% "perfect") were the classic methodological items included in CONSORT (descending order: participants, materials, procedures, setting, and intervention). CONCLUSION: Clinical replicability must be considered in RCTs reporting, particularly for complex interventions. Classical methodological checklists such as CONSORT are not enough, and also Template for Intervention Description and Clinical replication do not cover all the requirements. This study supports the need for field-specific checklists.status: publishe
Clinical replicability of rehabilitation interventions in randomized controlled trials reported in main journals is inadequate
Objective: The objective of this study was to study if randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in rehabilitation (a field where complex interventions prevail) published in main journals include all the details needed to replicate the intervention in clinical practice (clinical replicability). Study Design and Setting: Forty-seven rehabilitation clinicians of 5 professions from 7 teams (Belgium, Italy, Malaysia, Pakistan, Poland, Puerto Rico, the USA) reviewed 76 RCTs published by main rehabilitation journals exploring 14 domains chosen through consensus and piloting. Results: The response rate was 99%. Inter-rater agreement was moderate/good. All clinicians considered unanimously 12 (16%) RCTs clinically replicable and none not replicable. At least one “absent” information was found by all participants in 60 RCTs (79%), and by a minimum of 85% in the remaining 16 (21%). Information considered to be less well described (8–19% “perfect” information) included two providers (skills, experience) and two delivery (cautions, relationships) items. The best described (50–79% “perfect”) were the classic methodological items included in CONSORT (descending order: participants, materials, procedures, setting, and intervention). Conclusion: Clinical replicability must be considered in RCTs reporting, particularly for complex interventions. Classical methodological checklists such as CONSORT are not enough, and also Template for Intervention Description and Clinical replication do not cover all the requirements. This study supports the need for field-specific checklists. © 2019 Elsevier Inc